Everything in the visible universe is subject to lunar gravity now. That's how gravity works.

Lets be honest, if there were anything worth stealing in Germany, the British would already have done it.

Jokes aside again, criminals, even wanted criminals are by still protected by law. The law doesn't stop applying to people when they break it. The definition of an "outlaw" is someone who is expressly denied the protection of the law, so by definition an outlaw can't be wanted (hence the old trope about the wild west outlaw being wanted dead or alive is completely wrong), in effect an outlaw can't seek the protection of the law for crimes committed against them meaning another person can rob or murder them without consequence.

How is this any different to the FBI's most wanted list?

Clue By Four: it isn't.

Or the US seeking Osama Bin Laden, all criminals they have/had little chance of getting so they release the info in the hopes of someone coming forward with info leading to a capture. It also limits where they can travel to as it's a public notice that they're wanted.

This is the exact opposite of a doxxing.

Jokes aside, I think the point is this isn't really a doxxing. Doxxing is an unauthorised release of personal information (usually with the intent to cause harm), this is really the opposite as it's a state releasing the name of a wanted criminal.

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

In many countries including the UK, speed camera locations are public knowledge, the locations are published and there aren't that many mobile cameras (and they're housed in giant Transit vans). I don't bother with anything like Waze simply because the cameras are bright yellow boxes on the top of poles or huge transit vans with police markings. You can spot them a mile away and if you cant, you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I figured out years ago that what the far right claims the other side is going to do (or doing) is exactly what they intend to do.

The correct answer is to lie.

Give them the figure you want, not the figure you have.

It's not like they can check (legally, at least in most countries).

Also, "my current role is WFH, so if this role requires any travel I'll need at least a £10,000 increase".

And why shouldn't they be "resistant"?

They go out and spend the money to increase capacity and this whole AI fad falls in a heap long before they recoup the investment, the techbros aren't going to pick up the tab. Hell, they were planning to screw them on price from the very beginning.

I suggest:

First offence: Have to watch CSPAN for 5 hours a day, for a week, without sleeping through it - evidence to be provided in court

Second offence: Have to sing Miley Cyrus songs and Baby Shark on TikTok - sober

Third offence: License to practice and all memberships of country clubs and golf courses revoked

It baffles the mind that Microsoftware - known for decades for being unreliable shit - is allowed on space missions at all, no matter how uncritical the role. The potential for malware alone is ludicrous. "Hey, pay us 2500 bitcoins if you want your space capsule back".

Then again, I figure the days when NASA did the right stuff are long past.

They tried that with Apollo 13. And.... that actually did work, sorta.

Well it's in France where France has consumer protection laws and truth in advertising laws so they can't just pull the "it's a license not a purchase Nyer Nyer" in a French court and expect to walk out like King Dick. Even though you're purchasing a license it's still a purchase and you still have the expectation that it's not time limited, especially if a time limitation was not specified and clearly advertised before purchase.

I think a better question would be how long ago was it withdrawn from sale? If they were still selling it up until the moment of the shutdown that is a serious problem.